This work will examine the criticisms made of Theonomy by Matthew Cliff of Brisbane School of Theology.
Mr. Cliff set out to speak on the Abortion Abolitionism movement by primarily criticising Theonomy, in which he says “shapes and drives the entire AA movement,”[i] to which we now find ourselves talking about it. I’m grateful to Mr. Cliff for stepping into this arena in critiquing Theonomy. Theonomy, rather than a movement, is the theological position where God’s Law is upheld, believing it is abiding today, that it remains the just standard, righteous and sufficient to deal with all of life’s endeavours.
While it is true that there is a connection between Abolitionism and Theonomy, Mr. Cliff is correct in noticing that not all Abolitionists are theonomists, but all theonomists (to some extent) are abolitionists.[ii] The simple explanation is that the abolitionists uphold the Law of God on this one point of murder and how it ought to be dealt with in accordance with scripture.
I grant that there is connection here, but there are plenty of Christians who consciously choose to not label themselves as theonomists while they proclaim the Law of God on the streets within Abolish Abortion Australia, and that’s fine. Indeed, I am a member of Abolish Abortion Australia. Primarily however, I will set out to defend Theonomy that is often associated with Abortion Abolitionism.
Addressing the Critique
Part 1
While I thank Mr. Cliff for attempting to bring to light theological errors of Theonomy, how and where he takes the position of arguing from needs to be taken into consideration seriously. On page eight of his critique, he explains the contrast between what he calls the Classical position over against the Theonomist position, and in doing so, argues that the “ceremonial” (i.e. sacrificial) laws have been fulfilled in Christ, to which he rightly points to Hebrews 9. But in his reasoning for the fulfillment of the civil laws in particular, his position from arguing shifts to a footnote.[iii] Why is this the case? I think because it is not as easily answered as with what is explicitly stated in Scripture, so he had to appeal to a fallible source. I would not have a problem if what the footnote contained was in scripture, but it is not.
Moreover, in contrasting the theonomic position with the classical, Mr. Cliff rightly quotes Greg Bahnsen, but then goes on to describe his position as being “an inherently political project,”[iv] as if Bahnsen had forced a chic idea onto the Bible. This is grossly untrue.
Preceding this point on page seven, Mr. Cliff referred to the idea made by Ligon Duncan that theonomists do not want a biblical ethic, but the ethic of the Sinai Covenant.[v] This is a big charge against the theonomists. If this was true, theonomists do not take into
consideration the New Covenant, making us Judaisers, cutting us off from the faith therefore. If there was an ethical distinction between “biblical ethics” and “Sinai Covenant ethics,” those distinctions would be covenantal, thereby disastrous if the theonomists seek Sinai ethics over [all-encompassing] biblical ethics.
I purposely lined those criticisms up to go to what must be said before we get too hasty. What Bahnsen argues is actually an argument from Scripture. His central thesis in Theonomy In Christian Ethics, a work cited by Mr. Cliff, lays out the basis for the continuing validity of God’s law. And the text Bahnsen uses is Matthew 5:17-19:
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[vi]
In his thesis, Bahnsen spends 47 pages[vii] working through this text, and what do we find? Many things, but most importantly, conclusions from sound exegesis and sound hermeneutical methodology. From Bahnsen, “The concern of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 is to make clear that His purpose is not to abrogate the Older Testamental law.”[viii]
In responding to the two criticisms made, firstly, while it is true that Bahnsen was political, that is not his starting foundation. Bahnsen sought to answer the question of what we ought to be doing, and in this case, within the sphere of law. Bahnsen maintained that there is no other standard under heaven by which men must walk in, since it continues.
Secondly, to address the charge made that theonomists seek the Sinai ethic over against the Biblical ethic, we need to ask ourselves, do theonomists hold to this? If we mean by “Sinai ethic” to be the Law given on Sinai apart from further biblical revelation, then no, we reject that. These categories are misconstruing and are irrelevant. Theonomists do not ignore further revelation, as Bahnsen points out,
“[I]f I were to continue the ritual observances under the New Covenant, I would be despising the final accomplishment of salvation in Christ.”[ix]
So then, how can Bahnsen defend himself with a potential charge of leaving out aspects of the Law whilst claiming that all of the Law is presumed to continue? Bahnsen continues,
“The New Testament shows the Christian how to “see” the ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ and His redemptive economy (e.g., passover is seen in the Lord’s supper). Thus the change in outward form of observance is grounded finally in the teaching of God’s word and is not arbitrarily brought to the data of the Bible as an extraneous model. Hence also the New Testament is showing the believer how it is that the ceremonial law is not abrogated but fulfilled in Christ for us.”[x]
And he further states,
“Only scriptural authority is sufficient to alter the observance of any law from God, and only Scripture can be taken as the basis for characterizing any law as typological or ceremonial.”[xi]
What Bahnsen gets at is that it is not up to us, or from secondary sources, to determine what classifies as ceremonial or typological, but that of only Scripture interpreting Scripture.
While it is true that the theocracy of Israel has vanished as a political entity, how does this fact correspond with scripture equipping us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17) in light of God’s kingdom mission to reconcile all things to Himself (Colossians 1:20)?
Part 2
Moving on, the next line of criticism to address is on the Kingdom of God. On page ten, Mr. Cliff points to the position where the Kingdom of God is actually the “church”.[xii] To know what the Kingdom of God is, we have to ask what the nature of the Kingdom is, the domain of the Kingdom, and the mission of the Kingdom. If the Kingdom of God is the church, is the nature of his Kingdom, then, individual Christians, and that its existence is
dependent on Christians? Is the domain of the kingdom the local church? Is the mission of the kingdom to bring people to church? Unfortunately, Mr. Cliff conflates the roles of the Kingdom of God with the Church, thereby reducing the Kingdom of God to the church, as Joseph Boot comments:
“Because the institutional church is rightly limited in its role and jurisdiction in the Christian life and in human society, whenever and wherever an unscriptural dualism reigns, where artificial separations of nature and grace, law and gospel, creation and redemption are propounded, God and his Word become theoretically imprisoned in the church, and Christ’s reign is faithlessly limited to one sphere of life.”[xiii]
Boot is correct in noting that the institutional church indeed has its jurisdictions, and if the Kingdom of God is contained within the church, then the Kingdom of God is hindered by the church’s limitations amongst the rest of creation, spheres and institutions. Does the church do missions? Absolutely, the people of God apart from the institutional church ought to be operating under God’s Kingdom jurisdiction, which is not the institutional church.
If we confuse the Kingdom of God with the church, then the only time you’re operating within the Kingdom is when you’re serving within the institution, which sounds a lot like the Roman church. The nature of the Kingdom is spiritual (John 18:36), the domain of the Kingdom is all of creation (Matthew 12:28-29, Romans 8:19-21) and the Mission of the Kingdom is to glorify God in the expansion of the reign of Christ through His people; the Universal Church (Matthew 28:18-20, Colossians 1:15-20, Matthew 6:10, Psalm 110:1-2, Matthew 13:31-32).
Why did I take time to criticize Mr. Cliff’s view of the Kingdom of God? Because how you view the Kingdom of God shapes how you look at the Law (commands) of God. If God has nothing to say about law, the family, education, economics, science, or gardening, and is not under the jurisdiction of God’s rule, then obviously Christ did not come to restore it, and no good, law and order can come out of these spheres. Boot again,
“But Christianity, the true gospel of the kingdom, cannot be locked up within a single institution any more than it can be corralled into the enclosure of individual salvation from the consequences of sin. For salvation, which implies total wholeness and restoration, is also deliverance from the power and corruption of sin. The scope of salvation is as broad as the scope of the Fall. Clearly then, the faith of the gospel is centered in and focused upon Christ Himself, not in an institution.”[xiv]
I disagree with Mr. Cliff that the Kingdom of God does not manifest itself physically, since its domain certainly does (i.e. the earth, Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:35a). Only by implication through the rule of Christ, and not from roots found within an earthly or worldly source,[xv] is where we see His rule on earth be manifested, as He has all authority in heaven and on earth.
Therefore, applying it to AA, justice in proclaiming the Law of God on the streets to combat the cultural issue of abortion is Kingdom work by those, obviously, who are part of the Universal Church outside of the institution. If the Kingdom of God does not encompass law and government, then scripture does not speak on it, nor is it redeemable. But we know that it does and what it ought to look like.
Part 3
Much that has been said so far in the critique has answered much of the misunderstandings and errors of Mr. Cliff. In his next section, on page twelve, he gets into the question of how believers should relate to the Mosaic law in light of Christ and the new Covenant. We have already dealt with what Jesus had to say in Matthew 5:17-19, that the law is binding, as our Lord warns not to annul any of them (Matthew 5:19). So what about now that we are in the New Covenant?
Let us recall what is new about the New Covenant and what the first benefit entails: God will put His Law on our heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10). Part of the New Covenant benefit is that we are able to, by our affections bestowed upon us, approach God, as well as keeping His commandments (John 14:15); our affections are also set upon the Law of God (Psalm 119; Ephesians 2:10, Romans 8:4).
I agree with the scripture quotations used in this section of his critique[xvi] in reference to what typological events have taken place, but only by the hermeneutical method he accuses theonomists of using: that the law is binding unless stated otherwise.[xvii]
I wonder, though, what law were the apostles operating under in their ministry, as the Law of God apparently has no “determinative role among God’s people.”[xviii] The law of Christ, then? That would work if that is defined by what He said in Matthew 4:4 and 5:17-19, that the Law still has a central and determinative role in all of life for the Christian (cf. 1 John 5:2-3).
Part 4
The term “General Equity” has definitely played a massive role in the early theonomic tradition, particularly to Bahnsen, who evidently desired to remain within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.[xix] I do not share his sentiment. I believe “General Equity” has actually made Theonomy more ambiguous in its enforcement.[xx] This becomes relevant now to the “General Equity” of law in the Bible in pages 13-14 of the critique.
On the not uncommon idea, propounded by Mr. Cliff, that we can define the parapet law in its General Equity to mean the government can enforce workplace regulations, building codes, and public safety laws,[xxi] is to miss something extremely important: the jurisdiction of the government. In God’s Law, there is no legislative function apart from what has been given to the people (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32).
The unwitting assumption that man or the government have this prerogative unconsciously shows us that the state ought to be autonomous, likely due to tradition and how drenched we are in this kind of rule in the West. But in fact, the reader may notice that along with the parapet law in Deuteronomy 22:8 there is no penalty assigned to failing to put up a parapet.
If, as Mr. Cliff suggests, we legislate a principle of the Law of God whereby it does not have a penalty, ought it be a punishable law? In fact, under manmade legislation, there would be an arbitrary penalty assigned to it, causing injustice and unproductiveness. Legislating is a prerogative only God has. Therefore, this interpretation of the “historic Reformed meaning,”[xxii] as well as the General Equity position, are unqualified when it comes to 21st-century theological development, because both positions hold an outdated view of the legislative function.
On this, Chris Hume says plainly, “There is a place for law, but it must be limited to what the Triune God, in the Bible, has legislated.”[xxiii] God in His law does not prescribe the state to enforce workplace regulations, building codes, and public safety laws – that is entirely up to the enterprises if they so choose within their sphere of operation (Something altogether foreign to our world currently).
Part 5
Now, up to page fifteen, we see the issue of hermeneutics come up. Briefly touched on earlier, Mr. Cliff criticised Bahnsen’s hermeneutics stating, “The error is that theonomists begin with continuity and require explicit New Testament repeal before civil laws can be set aside.”[xxiv]
In light of Bahnsen’s appeal and expansion of Matthew 5:17-19 in Theonomy in Christian Ethics, I object to Mr. Cliff calling it erroneous because it is Scripture that qualifies this continuity, thus putting the burden of proof on my opponent for his hermeneutics. And was it not true that explicit New Testament repeal was needed to qualify the antitypes pertaining to the sacrificial laws? It is this same consistent hermeneutic, same treatment of the whole law of God, that Bahnsen uses as his hermeneutic.
Instead, Mr. Cliff wants to offer the “Classical Reformed” hermeneutic that you need to “begin with discontinuity that was introduced through fulfilment of the Mosaic covenant through Christ.”[xxv] Could he possibly be referring to Matthew 5:17-19, where Jesus came not to abrogate, but to fulfil? I do not see that or where he is coming from here, he may need to clarify.
We do not deny redemptive history; there is a New Covenant. But the Church cannot wield the sword to punish those who do evil; that is the job for God’s minister, the delegated authority in this sphere; the powers (Romans 13:3-4). How would an authority know if he is not committing murder when he wields the sword? How would Mr. Cliff know, too?
Part 6
There seems to be an endorsement from Mr. Cliff in “seeing society shaped by biblical principles.”[xxvi] There’s an objection from me here, however.[xxvii] Would these Christian values be Christian values if they conflict with the Law of God? Mr. Cliff also unopposed Christian Reconstructionism “in principle” – just without theonomic ethics.[xxviii] Nonetheless, I think we are getting to the heart of the issue here:
“[T]he objection is to the confusion that arises when the civil legislation given to the theocratic nation of Israel is applied to modern, non-theocratic states.”[xxix]
Interestingly enough, I agree. We cannot expect to enforce God’s judicial Law within a man-made form of government. The Law, as well as the form, must be in accordance with God’s Law (Theonomy). Our current system will not last due to its imperfections, but God’s revealed form of government is perfect, and therefore appropriate to enforce the Law of God. Man with God’s Law in his hands cannot legislate God’s Law because God’s Law contains the form of government to dispense the Law of God righteously and justly.
What good is having the death penalty established for murder if you only need one witness to convict? What good is there in punishing delinquents if they’re protected by the state for crimes that, according to the Bible, would result in the death penalty? What good is having a state, or a politician, that upholds Christian values and passes conservative laws, but taxes you, all the while imprisoning you for not paying tax in the same breath?
These issues would not be systemically susceptible under a theocracy. How much evil would be done against the Law of God if we try to keep the man-made system while attempting to “establish His Law” (Romans 3:31)? So I agree wholeheartedly on this point by Mr. Cliff, not that it nullifies what God requires, but rather points to the fact that we need to think outside of our current man-made form of government.
Part 7
Now we get to see Mr. Cliff’s view of the appropriate response to the authority over us Christians in our context. Under the New Covenant, he claims, “[T]he Christian approach to law and government is characterised by holding together two complementary biblical commitments: [Respectful submission to civil authorities and unwavering primary allegiance to God.][xxx]
Mr. Cliff takes on the view of the authorities whereby you must, essentially, obey whatsoever they ask you unless it contradicts Scripture (and/or their conviction, generally). In his listing of the Christian approach to law and government, he neglects to include the obligations of the government (ruler) to function as a “minister of God.” (Romans 13:1, 4; 1 Peter 2:14) I will allow Bahnsen to speak for himself on Mr. Cliff’s view taken from Theonomy in Christian Ethics[xxxi]:
“The positivistic approach to Romans 13 has been found to produce highly suspect conclusions in the past, some being willing to go so far as to grant autonomy to the state. Others have maintained that Paul is saying that all governments have divine approval of such a character that the Christian would be morally culpable for disobeying the government except where preaching the gospel was prohibited. Beyond that no ethical criteria can be laid upon the state, and the believer has a strong obligation to have a positive and patriotic attitude toward whatever government is in power.”[xxxii]
I don’t have doubt in my mind that Mr. Cliffe wants to be as reasonable as possible with the circumstances we are in, but to submit to the government without having a higher law for them to submit opens up totalitarianism. Bahnsen again,
“It is quite clear that Romans 13 has two elements in it: practical ethics and normative description …what is expected of the Christian and what is expected of the state.”[xxxiii]
Final thoughts
In conclusion, all that is said about the theological foundations of Theonomy, it is founded upon the Word of God; the whole Word of God. Matthew 5:17-19 is clear that Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfil (the antonym for abolish).[xxxiv] In the end, what indeed is Mr. Cliff’s view of the state? How ought it function, and by what standard do they operate under?
Surely the state is not a law unto itself; autonomous. We can agree that the covenant community is not a nation-state, but it is the Universal Church. But that isn’t what is at stake. What’s at stake is what then ought the state be doing as God’s deacon (Romans 13:4)? And, what ought they not be doing?
I do not believe you can be doing “salt and light ministry”[xxxv] while neglecting the very point of contact of those various ministries; doing Matthew 5:13-16 while ignoring 5:17-19. If law and order is not founded upon the whole council of God, then it is founded upon a different foundation; a foreign and pagan foundation. We know that the Word of God contains everything we need for being equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and we also know that the Law is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8-11). God’s minister, the powers, is a good work that God’s Word encompasses. To finish full circle with Bahnsen,
“The civil magistrate has been commissioned by God to punish workers of evil in society; this is his task and proper function. His ministry is not in vain as he executes penal justice on criminals, for he has been “ordained” and “sent” by the Lord of Justice Himself…not simply [in] God’s decretive will, but God’s preceptive will––and he sins should he fail to do so [as God’s instrument].”[xxxvi]
[i] Cliff, Matthew, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 3.
[ii] Ibid., 6.
[iii] See Ibid., 8.
[iv] Ibid., 9.
[v] Ibid., 5-6.
[vi] Matthew 5:17-19 LSB
[vii] In the 3rd (2002) edition.
[viii] Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nacogdoches: TX. Covenant Media Press, 2002), 54
[ix] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 208.
[x] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 213.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] See Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 10.
[xiii] Joseph Boot, Think Christianly: Developing an Undivided Mind (Ontario: Canada. Ezra Press, 2025), 98.
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Cf. John 18:36.
[xvi] See Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 12
[xvii] Ibid., see 16.
[xviii] Ibid., 12.
[xix] Along with the Catechisms, See Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 35.
[xx] While I can see a “General Equity” function within the revealed form of government in adjudication, General Equity Theonomists, however, want to Legislate the “General Equity”.
[xxi] Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 14.
[xxii] See ibid.
[xxiii] Chris Hume, Seven Statist Sins (Lancaster: PA. The Lancaster Patriot, 2023), 48.
[xxiv] Cliffe, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 16.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] Ibid., 16.
[xxvii] For a further read of my objection to having “Christian Values,” the link to my article is found here: https://www.caldronpool.com/p/are-christian-values-enough?utm_source=publication-search
[xxviii] See Cliffe, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 16
[xxix] Ibid., 16-17.
[xxx] Ibid., 18
[xxxi] Greg Bahnsen spends an entire chapter, titled “The Civil Magistrate in the New Testament,” addressing and looking closely at Romans 13 and relevant passages.
[xxxii] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 357.
[xxxiii] Ibid., 361.
[xxxiv] Bahnsen deals with what “fulfil” entails in Matthew 5:17 on pages 54 to 74 in Theonomy, comparing and refuting various interpretations of it.
[xxxv] Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 18.
[xxxvi] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 369-370.